3 ms·
You took offense? Why? When women didnt have as many rights they had more kids (fewer options to do anything else). Thats just the trade off - women are free
by refurb 4y ago
You took offense? Why?
When women didnt have as many rights they had more kids (fewer options to do anything else).
Thats just the trade off - women are free to choose to not have kids and thats what they choose.
- mxkopy 4y agoBelieve it or not, women don't have to be forced into having kids. That you view this as important to birth rates is messed up TBH
- refurb 4y agoI have no idea what you mean by forced. If you took a look at the data, youd realize it’s mostly people having fewer kids. Almost the same percent of American women give birth as 50 years ago. Women will choose to have fewer kids if given the option. Why does that offend you?
- mxkopy 4y ago> Women will choose to have fewer kids if given the option. This right here. Having a kid is an intensely personal and individual decision. Generalizations like this are the essence of bigotry. Women that have more social responsibilities will choose to have fewer kids. Now, is that because they're women, or because of the responsibility? Which one do you think matters more? Also, the idea that women must be cajoled by society into having children is just profane. Women actually want to have kids, you know (I guess not from personal experience?). It's a biological fact. Women can have equal rights and also want kids because wanting kids is natural.
- refurb 4y agoHuh? “More social responsibilities”? Like what? Plenty of women choose to have lots of kids. There is no “responsibility” to have kids or not, its a choice. Not sure why you argue with empirical fact that has been seen across the global when countries develop. When given the option to have fewer kids, women have fewer kids. You seem offended with the choices women make. Like they shouldnt be making that choice for themselves.
- mxkopy 4y ago> Huh? “More social responsibilities”? Like what? Plenty of women choose to have lots of kids. There is no “responsibility”. This is incoherent. Average modern life has many more social demands than it did 100 years ago. > You seem offended You seem to be familiar with all the memes. Have fun!
- refurb 4y agoWe're not talking 100 years ago. You only need to go back to 1970 to see the drop in birth rates. Does 1970's America have much less social responsibilities?
- mxkopy 4y agoYou should be talking about a hundred years ago. The causes for these trends aren't spontaneous, they're historical. So you look at history. Are the 1970's really more important than WWI? than the industrial revolution? than Enlightenment?
- refurb 4y agoThe birth rate decline happened in the 60-70s. Shouldnt look at what was happening then? Who cares about 100 years ago. Birth rates werent dropping until decades later.
- toxik 4y agoWhy? Because it is suggesting that the only way to have lasting prosperity is to enslave women. How is that not immediately obvious to you? I live in one of the countries that, supposedly, support parents so much, and these society offer nowhere near the amount of support required to raise children and have both parents with day jobs. Nowhere NEAR enough. The logic is very simple. You do not have time and energy to support even one child while living a fulfilling life if both parents work. That is my explanation, and I didn't have to call women's rights into question. Weird, huh. When you use a disgusting explanation model, you need a very strong case. Your case is make-believe and handwaving.
- riffraff 4y agoI think you misinterpreted my words: it's fantastic that humans (both men and women) have more options, if they choose to have less kids that's noone's business but their own. We did ok as a species with way less people that exist today, society will adapt, and there is no valid reason to impose "society's choice" on anyone.